2. 职称英语
  3. Negotiating—a complex process even between parties from the same nation — is

Negotiating—a complex process even between parties from the same nation — is

游客2023-09-10  55
问题     Negotiating—a complex process even between parties from the same nation — is even more complicated in international transactions bemuse of the added chance of misunderstandings stemming from cultural differences. It is essential to understand the importance of rank in the other country; to know who the decision makers are; to be familiar with the business style of the foreign company; and to understand the nature of agreements in the country, the significance of gestures, and negotiating etiquette. These cultural differences lead to very different style of contract negotiation.
    There are enormous cultural differences between Asia and the United States. The classic difference is that in Asia, the good faith human relationship between the parties is central. In the United States, on the whole, there is a greater effort to have precise legal descriptions of everything that might happen, resolving every particular type of dispute that can be predicted in advance. Thus, during negotiations, the United States party frequently likes to have a lawyer present and tends to be less ready to use a situation of simple negotiation between the principals.
    This does not mean that concepts of good faith and good faith relationship between the parties to a contract are not taken seriously in the West, but it does mean that in the legal tradition we axe looked forward to spelling out all the precise details and you should not be surprised if your Western partner asks you to do that. There is a good faith obligation as part of normal contract law under the United States and European law.
    A contract is a legally binding agreement which the courts will enforce. This definition, likes all definitions, is not perfect, but it does emphasize the most important element in all contracts — agreement. All contracts are agreements, although not all agreements are contracts.
    So without agreement there can be no contract. But how do you prove the existence of agreement which is really no more than a state of mind of English judges, who are more interested in practical solutions than in abstract theories? They have found, from experience, that if one person makes a clear and definite offer and another person unconditionally accepts the offer, then it is reasonable to say that the two of them are in agreement. There is no attempt to look inside their minds to find out what they are really thinking: it is what they say and do that counts. [br] How can you find out whether two parsons are in agreement or not?
选项
答案 Judging by what they say and do.
解析 本题问“你需要怎样做才能判断双方是否速成一致”。根据问题中关键词“in agreement”可确定文中相关部分在第五段三行处。文中提到：“if one person makes a clear and definite offer and another person unconditionally accepts the offer, then it is reasonable to say that the two of them are in agreement. There is no attempt to look inside their minds to find out what they are really thinking: it is what they say and do that counts.”(如果一方做出明确的提议并且对方表示五条件地接受，那么可以说双方达成了一致。不必关心他们实际怎么想的，重要的是根据他们所说的话和所做的事就足以做出判断)。因此，本题答案为：Judging by whet they say and do。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3001015.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)